ilya-biryukov marked an inline comment as done.
ilya-biryukov added a comment.
@erichkeane could you take another look at this?
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaTemplate/concepts-PR54629.cpp:10
+int main() {
+ A<int> a;
+}
----------------
ilya-biryukov wrote:
> erichkeane wrote:
> > Simply 'doesn't crash' isn't quite enough for a test here, I would like to
> > see some level of confirmation which of the versions of "A" get selected
> > here. So perhaps `A<double>{}.some_func();` call that wouldn't be
> > valid/etc. And perhaps a situation where both instances have a constraint
> > and and we diagnose why it doesn't fit?
> >
> >
> >
> I have added the test for primary template vs specialization.
> Keeping a comment open to add a test for two specializations too, I will do
> this a bit later.
Added a check for error messages in case of ambiguous specializations and no
matching specialization (in terms of function overloads).
For classes there is no way to cause no matching specialization AFAICT.
Either a primary template will be picked and no error message will be shown or
its requirements will fail and the error message will not mention the
specializations at all.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D127487/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D127487
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
